Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Partch in the New Age, with caveats

List members:

If your eyes are glazed over with Partch disagreements, hit delete __now__

{Johnny, you wrote...}
>Answer: It was Danlee Mitchell who first expressed this opinion to me.
>(Heard of him?) He explained to me years ago, that he thought the early
>works inferior, due to the greater quality of the unique instruments he had
>devised and built.

A very stupid and wrong response to this would be "Danlee would never say that!" After all, I wasn't there and I wouldn't ever call someone a liar as well. However, this is so completely and utterly at odds with what I know him to believe that:

1. there may have been some incredible non-communication at work
2. you may have misremembered it (I'll get to this later)
3. he may have been overcome by diesel exhaust
4. combinations of the previous

More to the point, I will print this out and ask him about it on the weekend. If he is incredulous, as I suspect, I will reply and you may retract any thoughts built on this as a foundation.

>There was much that was ludicrous at the Barb performance, but it was not the
>tubed marimba, your hearsay to the contrary. To my ear, it was beautifully
>amplified (3 mikes) and had a rich tone. Please provide me with whatever >detail you have, directly if it sensitive.

How did it look? Did it sound like a bass marimba? I myself have not even seen a picture, but I was guided by reports and Skip's own description of his instruments (wasn't it "hideous" that he used?).

But more to the point: hey everyone, I don't have access to microtonal keyboards, but I want to play microtonal music, so everytime I see little intervals I'll just play clusters, and maybe bang a little harder. Silly, silly, silly. But so is substituting a cardboard tube instrument for a bass marimba. Or am I being too sensitive? And what is this about:

>The original recording made by Partch used a bass drum instead (and the >Bass Marimba was added much later).

The score mentions no drum whatsoever, but the recording is in two references as having an *Indian* drum. One cursory listen would affirm that it is not a bass drum.

Just for the record, or acetate, if you will. This type of playing fast and loose with details could, and can, add up to a gradual distortion of a pieces original intent. Is it important today? Maybe not. Will this gradual distortion be important some day? Damn straight.

I realize that you don't agree on these matters, but the drum is just one example of an error, no matter small, that you not only skip over but use as a basis for your own changes to Partch's material.

> > A tubed-diamond marimba could not work
> > (so don't fear all holders of original Partch instruments).
> > However, Skip LaPLante spent over a year constructing a
> > wonderful "traveling" Kithara. It takes 2 full days to build and a
> > single day to dissemble. The materials cost $1000 and it was built
> > to Partch's specifications.
>
>"Long ago I wrote you, Johnny, after careful listening to your
>performance of "U. S. Highball", including commentary on the usage of
>the Kithara. In a number of places I was sure that it was an octave
>off, and that was among a number of other problems. You never replied
>back, so you don't want to own up to any problems that might crop up."
>
>Jon, Jon, Jon, this has nothing to do with nothing.

It absolutely does. I didn't get any response from you after I wrote, with one of the items being specifically wrong about the Kithara. If it was a built-in problem (a hexad being an octave off) then it most certainly applies if the same instrument is misused in a similar manner.

But it could very well be all sorted out now, I suppose.

>I DID reply back to you, but you've forgotten. I discussed your e-mail >with each performer.

I am sorry, then. I will do a thorough search of my hard disk, and if I don't find it I might see if you still have a copy. But I do not ever recall hearing back from you. More below...

>And of course, I do not agree with every one of your criticisms. (I was >really surprised that you thought my voice was too "gay.")

This troubles me greatly, and I'll say why publicly: I can't imagine ever using that phrase in that way, and if I did I'd be both mortally embarrassed and would excuse myself from the room -- that kind of attitude is unpardonable, for anyone.

But at MicroFest I was called, to my face, a rather nasty name by Brian McLaren, directly in front of a couple of strangers, and attibuted it to something I wrote about a concert of his -- and he then quoted what I said. I found it so appalling that upon coming back home I searched my tuning list archives (all the way back to Dec 1996) and found the posting.

He had completely misquoted me, and I did not write the slur he imagined. But those two people probably thought I did.

>And to keep the ball rolling, may I suggest that you are misrepresenting Skip
>LaPlante regarding the Kithara.

I just was quoting Skip himself.

>For his own group (Music For Homemade Instruments), Skip is a pioneering >musician in a historical role worthy of comparison to Partch, himself.

I hardly think so. If you find the two to be that conjoined, maybe it explains a lot.

>His personal aesthetic is one thing (e.g., he always wears 2 different >color socks).

That is fine, and it pretty much sums me up as well. But he shows so much disdain for the non-instrumental aspects of Partch that I doubt he could turn them on like a light switch.

>But when he played as one of 13 percussionists in Lincoln Center for the >Ives "Universe" premiere, he wore a tuxedo.

I wore my first to the Senior Prom. Attitudes and aesthetics are harder to change than wardrobes.

>When he built the Kithara, he gave it a Partch look, indeed. It is far >and away, an intentionally refined instrument.

Well, *that* I'd like to see and hear. Not that it couldn't be done, but I've just heard it on recording.

>If you are stating flatly that I am personally taking liberties in aesthetics
>and performance standards going beyond some pale, please be specific.

Substituting instruments at will, including the use of a synth for reed organ, passing off "Mendota Night" in an improvisation as a bona fide Partch composition (what have I heard about claiming that Harry's page of notes is the earliest text-piece in American music? is this from the program notes, or is someone mistaken), mixing his music with visuals that have nothing to do with his music? I haven't written to the people that saw the concert (and there were people that liked it, I realize), but I would sure be curious to see if everyone of the pieces included the line "arranged by Johnny Reinhard", to distinguish them from actual Partch works.

>As you should know by now, the AFMM Ensemble is devoted to ever progressing
>performances of Partch's music, not unlike Newband before they were given
>control of the originals.

I don't understand the Newband reference, and they have them now so it is a moot point (there are other problems with Newband...). "ever progressing" -- there's a loaded statement! If you mean getting farther and farther away from anything he had in mind, you're probably right. But more below...

>In fact, other than guitarists John Schneider and Didier Aschour (who each >have specially made Partch-design guitars), the AFMM Ensemble is the only >group capable of presenting a number Partch works.

Well, you are seriously losing ground, because John Schneider is really on the right track, with three guitars in complete facility to Partch's originals, and a great new diamond marimba. To his *credit*, John did not include any pieces in the repertoire until he had the proper instrument for them. And his ensemble will expand, I am sure, along with an impressive start on productions that are more than mere "concerts of music", and a divergence from the specializations of concert-music-making.

If the Barbican concert is an example, then there is a significant opinion, and not singular, that would argue that you are not only not "capable of presenting a number Partch works", but that what you present misrepresents key values to an understanding of his work.

>As the instruments live out their mortality, it will only be ensembles >made up
>of musicians THAT DID NOT PLAY WITH PARTCH who will continue Partch's music

Duh. I don't plan on living forever, and I'm not performing Partch right now anyway. The problem is that when people take it upon themselves, like you, to cut corners just so they can say they are performing Partch, and the next batch cuts a few more corners, hell, one day it will be unrecognizable. All I look for is the honest attempt at really getting a performance that matches only what Partch asked for -- and that is a lot. And it isn't easy to do.

I've seen it done only rarely, only recently, and I don't think what you are doing matches it. And I could be very wrong, but I've watched your writings, I've heard your recordings, and I've spoken with people at the performances. Frankly, I would be thrilled to be 100% incorrect on this matter.

>I think it is wrong for you to disparage the pioneers in some ways no >differently than Partch's own critics.

You are so generous, calling yourself a pioneer, and comparing yourself to Partch. He battled against higher odds, sticking to more difficult (and self-imposed) artistic choices, and didn't hesitate to speak to the hypocrisies of the concert producer's bag of tricks.

Besides, you're getting the concert bookings, so what do you care what *I* think?

Unnecessarily,
Jon

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Real Life: Orchestral Percussionist
Web Life: "Corporeal Meadows" - about Harry Partch
http://www.corporeal.com/
NOTE:
If your reply bounces, try --> jonszanto@yahoo.com

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

Jon Szanto wrote:

> >There was much that was ludicrous at the Barb performance, but it was
> not the
> >tubed marimba, your hearsay to the contrary. To my ear, it was
> beautifully
> >amplified (3 mikes) and had a rich tone. Please provide me with
> whatever >detail you have, directly if it sensitive.
>
> How did it look? Did it sound like a bass marimba? I myself have not
> even seen a picture, but I was guided by reports and Skip's own
> description of his instruments (wasn't it "hideous" that he used?).

It looked great. I didn't like the sound so much, but sooner that than a
synth mock-up or no performance. I don't have a bass marimba to compare
it to.

> But more to the point: hey everyone, I don't have access to microtonal
> keyboards, but I want to play microtonal music, so everytime I see
> little intervals I'll just play clusters, and maybe bang a little
> harder. Silly, silly, silly. But so is substituting a cardboard tube
> instrument for a bass marimba. Or am I being too sensitive?

I think you're being too sensitive. (Something I've been guilty of
myself, I know.)

> Just for the record, or acetate, if you will. This type of playing fast
> and loose with details could, and can, add up to a gradual distortion
> of a pieces original intent. Is it important today? Maybe not. Will
> this gradual distortion be important some day? Damn straight.

Yes, it means that Partch might end up like any other composer. And that
instruments and a performance practice for 11-limit JI might evolve.

> >If you are stating flatly that I am personally taking liberties in
> aesthetics
> >and performance standards going beyond some pale, please be specific.
>
> Substituting instruments at will, including the use of a synth for reed
> organ, passing off "Mendota Night" in an improvisation as a bona fide
> Partch composition (what have I heard about claiming that Harry's page
> of notes is the earliest text-piece in American music? is this from the
> program notes, or is someone mistaken)

I don't think there was a detailed program. The sheet I was given simply
says "Harry Partch: Incident at Drake's Bay".

> , mixing his music with visuals
> that have nothing to do with his music?

In fact, the visuals got top billing.

> I haven't written to the people
> that saw the concert (and there were people that liked it, I realize),
> but I would sure be curious to see if everyone of the pieces included
> the line "arranged by Johnny Reinhard", to distinguish them from actual
> Partch works.

No. Johnny Reinhard, modest as ever, was only credited as director and
for vocals, tubed bass marimba and winds.

> >As you should know by now, the AFMM Ensemble is devoted to ever
> progressing
> >performances of Partch's music, not unlike Newband before they were
> given
> >control of the originals.
>
> I don't understand the Newband reference, and they have them now so it
> is a moot point (there are other problems with Newband...). "ever
> progressing" -- there's a loaded statement! If you mean getting farther
> and farther away from anything he had in mind, you're probably right.
> But more below...

Problems with Newband as well! Is it like real Sex Pistols fans don't buy
their records, so real Harry Partch fans don't go to the concerts? Unless
the Disciples have awarded their seal of approval, of course. Perhaps you
could put together an ANSI standard for a "Harry Partch performance".

> If the Barbican concert is an example, then there is a significant
> opinion, and not singular, that would argue that you are not only not
> "capable of presenting a number Partch works", but that what you
> present misrepresents key values to an understanding of his work.

Also sounds good.

Graham

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

We've entered into the coliseum phase in the latest Partch exchange. I
realize that there is a lot of negativity in these posts and that is a
turnoff for many. It is most frustrating for me, as well. I hope to respond
to the main issues brought up by Jon Szanto, and then get out of the way of
the big guns.

Why U.S. Highball is a part of this, I am not sure. I guess Jon wants to tie
in every last detail to sure up his points. Frankly, to me it shows that I
did in fact tell him that I would "circulate" his comments "to the players
involved, and did. This though we didn't play the piece since.
Unfortunately, Jon admitted he didn't have a score in his possession and so
he thought we took cuts that we didn't. We didn't cut anything from the
early quartet version. He also thought we split up the voices differently
than we actually did. The integrity of the quartet version was paramount in
our performance. To Jon's credit, I did develop my vocal skills along the
lines he suggested. Frankly, the Barbicon gig broke new ground for me in
doing the music. It is memorized now, which lends to more powerful
characterizations.

Re my memory of a comment by Jon about my voice being too gay, I knew it
wasn't in the first letter, and I can't remember in which fashion I heard it,
so I will withdraw the comment at this time (since Jon disavows it).
Danlee's impression of the earlier works as being compositionally inferior to
his later works was said to me by him over the phone. I don't believe I've
ever seen or spoken to Jon Szanto by phone, or did we?

Memory is not a sure thing and we are getting older, but I remember chalking
up Danlee's views on Partch's composition qualities to his being a
percussionist. The final percussion version of "U.S. Highball" is half the
length of the earlier quartet version recorded by Swiss Radio in Zurich which
would lighten the blow of AFMM performances (or so I believe).

As to the Bass Marimba substitution we use (please bare in mind that at no
time has it been possible for the AFMM to utilize Partch instruments) is
visually stimulating on stage (with 9 long tubes placed on a long table
facing the audience). Yes, Jon is too sensitive (he asked) in thinking that
piano clusters seeking microtones was the metaphor for what I was playing on
the tubed marimba. Each tube has a rich ringing pitch, in tune. I've played
percussion since I was the section leader in the John Dewey High School
Concert Band and Orchestra.

When I hear the recording I have of "Dark Brother" I hear what sounds to me
like a bass drum. Maybe there is a reference that I don't have that states
"Indian drum" (which Ives uses in the "Universe Symphony"), but it makes no
difference to my point. The non-pitched indefinite sound of the drum is far
less than the added part of a marimba, tubed or otherwise. The drum is not
"just one example of an error, no matter small, that you not only skip over
but use as a basis for your changes to Partch's material." Jon this is wrong
and you should apologize. I have not made changes to Partch's musical
material. Jon, unless you can prove otherwise, you should discontinue
negative commentary regarding my honesty. And please, don't bring in Brian
McLaren now. (This is a sore point for me because you quote him on the
Corporeal Meadows site in misinformation, yet refuse to make any changes or
allow for a contrary view.

Regarding pioneers, I suggest to everyone that they are alive and well among
us. No, Harry Partch was not the last pioneer, and not even the only one.
The brutality with which modern pioneers are attacked is the same-old,
same-old. We do not learn from experience, it seems. Partch was batted
about, treated poorly by Henry Cowell, and he, himself, was often rude and
cruel or indifferent to those similar to him in his lifetime (such as with
John Cage). Skip LaPlante has been presenting original instruments with an
ecological bent since the '70s. His philosophy is to make music of the
things we have left behind as refuse. And Harry was a hobo. LaPlante is a
wonderful composer, more abstract than Partch, but no less rewarding (and
even more rewarding) at least regarding large chamber works. He plays any
technique, string (was a bassist who graduated from Princeton), percussion,
and winds. Much of his time is spent performing at different schools where
he makes a huge difference. He has been honored in many ways, plastered from
the Wall Street Journal to MTV. Yes, I think of him as a pioneer, based on
his influence, and the generations that have picked up from him to follow in
his footsteps. He sees himself as first generation post-Partch. And Jon,
you are dismembering him, out of hand.

As for Bitter Music, why didn't the Partch Foundation supply some
instruments? Maybe you, Jon Szanto could have played a real Bass Marimba?
If you create an environment of a monopoly on the instruments, future
instruments will be different. The Boo is now made of plastic, yes? Should
a Partch aficionado be offended by this? Even if it sounds good and is,
heavens forbid, practical, why not?

"All I look for is the honest attempt at really getting a performance that
matches only what Partch asked for - and that is a lot. And it isn't easy to
do." Gee, I'm trying not to react to all the bad things you are implying
when you say "I've seen it done only rarely, only recently, and I don't think
what you are doing matches it." You are incorrect on this matter. I believe
this is a case of bias and I am confident that your estimation of the
situation is flawed.

Johnny Reinhard

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

Graham,

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> It looked great. I didn't like the sound so much, but sooner that
> than a synth mock-up or no performance. I don't have a bass
> marimba to compare it to.

I have, and I don't like to settle for "sooner that than".

> Yes, it means that Partch might end up like any other composer.
> And that instruments and a performance practice for 11-limit JI
> might evolve.

They can damn well evolve on their own, with articulate,
knowledgeable and inspired composers/performers doing their own
music. That you lump Partch in with "any other composer" speaks
volumes: I've said it many times, that I don't happen to feel him
*better* than other composers, but on an entirely different aesthetic
track, one which bypasses traditional concert settings whenever they
can be bypassed. If your goal is to equalize everything into the same
kind of compositional flatland, fine. But Partch is the wrong
inhabitant.

> I don't think there was a detailed program. The sheet I was given
> simply says "Harry Partch: Incident at Drake's Bay".

Boy, I shouldn't have made that boo-boo: I meant to refer to the
Drake 'piece', and typed Mendota. But if all the program said is
that, then Johnny's improvisation, which included instruments Partch
never used, gave people a completely wrong impression that it was
something Partch wrote.

> In fact, the visuals got top billing.

Ah, it gets worse!

> No. Johnny Reinhard, modest as ever, was only credited as director
> and for vocals, tubed bass marimba and winds.

Then it was a serious omission and not modesty.

> Problems with Newband as well! Is it like real Sex Pistols fans
> don't buy their records, so real Harry Partch fans don't go to the
> concerts? Unless the Disciples have awarded their seal of
> approval, of course. Perhaps you could put together an ANSI
> standard for a "Harry Partch performance".

That Partch composed and created under an unusual and unique set of
self-imposed artistic constraints and goals is pretty well known to
most who care to read about them. For anyone who has had the
opportunity to witness Partch in performance in rehearsal and take
time to understand his thrust, these matters are of importance, for
every lame concert that backpedals away from thes goals not only
detracts but distorts, for future audiences and performers, the true
impact he *could* have.

Dave, I realize, painfully so sometimes, that commentaries like the
one I have written come off as pronouncements from the annointed
arbiters. I have no idea how to express these same thought without
giving that impression, but it seems more important to voice them
then to worry about that particular fact. Partch has been dead only
25+ years, and already his creative works are starting to generate
their own mishapen clones. If people continued in his vein with new
works and new instruments, that would be a great day (and some are).
But the 'bad Partch before no Partch' just doesn't cut it with me.

> > If the Barbican concert is an example, then there is a
> > significant opinion, and not singular, that would argue that
> > you are not only not "capable of presenting a number Partch
> > works", but that what you present misrepresents key values to
> > an understanding of his work.

> Also sounds good.

I have no idea what that means, other than you find misrepresenting a
composer a positive trait.

Jon
(who still values your fisticuffs, and now has the tale told by the
fellow that separated the two combatants!)

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

David (I'm getting it right this time, yes/no?),

--- In tuning@y..., David Beardsley <xouoxno@v...> wrote:
> I can understand that. I'm just offering a simple solution.
> I don't know much about midi sensors for percussion,
> but one could always take boards and place midi triggers
> on the bottom of the board. You could still really
> wack the boards and not destroy the instrument. Attach
> boards to appropriately Corporeal stand.

I'm sure that is one way to skin the cat, and it is a simple
solution. But it only works if you think of a marimba bar as being
able to sound one kind of timbre -- which doesn't take into
consideration differing mallets, placement of stroke on the bar, not
to mention Partch's frequent use of naked palms and fingertips on the
bars.

Percussion triggers and concurrent synthesis/cross-sampling are
becoming ever more sophisticated, and I don't imagine that something
will exist one day. But I, as a non-guitarist, would never think that
a 'simple' solution would ever substitute for a good acoustic guitar,
except for experimental purposes.

As for electronic vs. acoustic percussion, one need only visit Jacky
Ligon's splendid "Galunlatea" to come to grips with how well the
electronic and acoustic can both complement and enhance each other.

> And...
>
> As time wears on, it becomes more and more important
> to consider building replicas of the Partch instruments.
> I know Skip has built a Kithra and Dean Drummond had
> a Chromelodeon and a Surrogate Kithara built.
> Maybe that's the real solution.

This I agree on completely. Schneider's efforts have been slow and
painstaking, but he seems to be on the path to a small but growing
number of accurate reproductions of the original Partch instruments.
Imagine my surprise, wandering into the hall as they were setting up:
I heard the Diamond Marimba for the first time in a couple of years,
but couldn't see it -- the player was just outside the door warming
up. It will really do justice to their renditions, as "The Rose"
and "The Waterfall" attested to last Friday.

Maybe I'll build a new Boo so I can go up to LA and play with
them...or a nice Harmonic Canon. The "Show Us Your Instruments" page
on the Meadows has a couple of examples of people who did a fine job
of replicating a Partch instrument.

I'll be posting a couple of pics of John's guitars and the Diamond
Marimba in the next day or so on the site so people can see for
themselves.

The instrument issue is not an easy one, I realize, and it is only
one part of the picture when performing his stuff.

> > Sorry, again, for the misunderstanding!
>
> No big deal.

Phew...

Cheers,
Jon

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

Jon Szanto wrote:

> > Yes, it means that Partch might end up like any other composer.
> > And that instruments and a performance practice for 11-limit JI
> > might evolve.
>
> They can damn well evolve on their own, with articulate,
> knowledgeable and inspired composers/performers doing their own
> music. That you lump Partch in with "any other composer" speaks
> volumes: I've said it many times, that I don't happen to feel him
> *better* than other composers, but on an entirely different aesthetic
> track, one which bypasses traditional concert settings whenever they
> can be bypassed. If your goal is to equalize everything into the same
> kind of compositional flatland, fine. But Partch is the wrong
> inhabitant.

There are a number of issues in there, and I'll deal with them in turn
without breaking up the quote.

I thought Incident at Drake's Bay was exactly as you describe. And I
don't know if they'd have been able to do it at the Barbican without Harry
Partch's name attached. In a way, his music is a Trojan horse for JI.
You need the instruments to perform it, and while you're at it you may as
well write some more music for them. But as the instruments are built for
JI, anything else written for them has to follow that. So the Partch
ensemble becomes an oasis for 11-limit music, even as instruments are
added or altered so it stops looking like the original.

I see this as an important aspect of Partch's legacy. I don't know if he
intended it, but it wouldn't have worked if he'd written for string
quartet instead. A few groups would have learned to play it, and then
they'd get back to normal music in normal tunings. Partch would have
become that weird composer you listen to between Mozart and Ades. I'll
bet, with time, the intonation would have slipped as well. But as soon as
you put a kithara on the stage, it infects everything else that gets
played there. Not only because of the way it's tuned.

As for him being like any other composer, well, if the music's good enough
that's what'll happen. Like every great composer in the sense of not
being like any other composer. You may not like it, and you're welcome to
your view, but you seem to be adopting a high moral tone here. Like
Johnny shouldn't have given the concert because it goes against your
principles.

Along with everything else, Partch left us a body of written music. If
that music, when compared with other music, is good enough to be performed
then it will be performed. You can't fight that. It's been let out into
the world, and it'll have to fend for itself. I think it's good enough to
survive. Maybe the wider theatrical aspects will too.

Partch's aesthetic is indeed unique, and a lot of that did come across.
It should have been obvious to everyone that Partch wasn't like other
composers. That's inescapable, it comes with the music. Even the
instruments, without the music, and without them being the right
instruments.

I'm not talking about a compositional flatland. Some composers will be
better than others. I think Partch is one of the good ones, maybe even a
great. I support all honest attempts to allow that music to live, so that
it can fulfil whatever potential it has.

> > I don't think there was a detailed program. The sheet I was given
> > simply says "Harry Partch: Incident at Drake's Bay".
>
> Boy, I shouldn't have made that boo-boo: I meant to refer to the
> Drake 'piece', and typed Mendota. But if all the program said is
> that, then Johnny's improvisation, which included instruments Partch
> never used, gave people a completely wrong impression that it was
> something Partch wrote.

I agree it's misleading. You'll have to take that up with whoever wrote
the program.

> > Problems with Newband as well! Is it like real Sex Pistols fans
> > don't buy their records, so real Harry Partch fans don't go to the
> > concerts? Unless the Disciples have awarded their seal of
> > approval, of course. Perhaps you could put together an ANSI
> > standard for a "Harry Partch performance".
>
> That Partch composed and created under an unusual and unique set of
> self-imposed artistic constraints and goals is pretty well known to
> most who care to read about them. For anyone who has had the
> opportunity to witness Partch in performance in rehearsal and take
> time to understand his thrust, these matters are of importance, for
> every lame concert that backpedals away from thes goals not only
> detracts but distorts, for future audiences and performers, the true
> impact he *could* have.

I couldn't have seen Partch in any context. Our lives only overlapped by
a few months. I can understand your perspective being different. But not
that inauthentic performances can detract from this true impact. If the
work's any good, it can survive all manner of distortion. Without people
like Johnny spreading the word, I think it's a lot less likely that I'll
ever get to experience this impact you describe. Lame performances would
be a different matter. This one didn't strike may that way. You other
informants may differ.

> Dave[sic], I realize, painfully so sometimes, that commentaries like the
> one I have written come off as pronouncements from the annointed
> arbiters. I have no idea how to express these same thought without
> giving that impression, but it seems more important to voice them
> then to worry about that particular fact. Partch has been dead only
> 25+ years, and already his creative works are starting to generate
> their own mishapen clones. If people continued in his vein with new
> works and new instruments, that would be a great day (and some are).
> But the 'bad Partch before no Partch' just doesn't cut it with me.

It comes over worse than you think. The attitude you give seems to me
entirely in opposition to what I understand as his own. Yes, he
approached his work with absolute integrity. But he didn't revere anybody
else's work, and he didn't ask anybody to revere him. Or perhaps that
conversation was never made public.

But hey, what do I know? I'm only joining in the conversation because I
happened to be at the concert.

25+ years is a long time. For a 25+ year-old, it's your whole life.
Richard Wagner set new standards for egotism and artistic reverence. One
example of this is that he forbade Parsifal to be performed outside of
Bayreuth for 30 years after his death. With a few notable exceptions,
this was observed. He considered a permanent ban, but even his colossal
ego wouldn't stomach it. By the same standards, Partch's 30 years are
almost up, so it's time for the world to take over.

There are other precedents outside the musical world. Virgil and Kafka
ordered their work to be burned, fortunately they weren't obeyed. Stanley
Kubrik didn't want me to see one of his films. Fortunately, again, the
power of veto expired on his death.

> > > If the Barbican concert is an example, then there is a
> > > significant opinion, and not singular, that would argue that
> > > you are not only not "capable of presenting a number Partch
> > > works", but that what you present misrepresents key values to
> > > an understanding of his work.
>
> > Also sounds good.
>
> I have no idea what that means, other than you find misrepresenting a
> composer a positive trait.

I find presenting good music to be a positive trait. If that
misrepresents the composer, too bad for the composer. But I see that
comment could have been misread. I meant that the music sounded good, not
the misrepresentation in itself.

Graham

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Skip LaPlante addresses the list about...well, you'll see. He built our the
AFMM's Kithara. -Johnny Reinhard

14 april 2001

I encountered Harry Partch's music about a year after I graduated from
college. Shortly afterwards I began building instruments. I don't think
that the two events are unrelated, but I wouldn't claim that Partch figured
prominently in the happenstance that led to my career building and composing
for instruments built from trash. Instead, Partch became a point of
reference. Once I was regularly playing my new instruments I started to look
at instruments and instrument builders in a new light. I began to seriously
examine non-western musical traditions. Among western composers Partch was
clearly the most significant. As my instrument collection expanded I became
ever more aware of timbres. Partch had worked with glass, metal, bamboo. I
found his use of materials compelling. I read Genesis of a Music.
I discovered that Partch considered several aspects of his work very
important: just intonation, corporeality, visual/sculptural impact. I knew
clearly that I didn't accept all of Partch's aesthetic.
I had no particular opinion about just intonation. I was interested in
timbre. For the most part my tunings were accidental. As long as I found
them interesting I had no real need to be systematic. But I had pretty well
pushed 12 equal to the limit and found pretty much any other tuning to be
more interesting. When I met Erv Wilson a few years later, he strongly
suggested that I try equal temperaments. Over the years I have and have come
to especially like 17 equal. I am an instrument builder working with
unconventional tunings, but not married to any of them. Is that Partchian?
I had a strong negative reaction to corporeality. People have always
tried to get me to dress in a certain way, to move in a certain way. I just
want people to leave me alone and let me play. Partch's corporeality was
nothing more than another invasion of my personal space.
I also had a strong negative reaction Partch's notion of how instruments
are supposed to look. I have a long and complicated relationship with visual
arts. My mother is a painter. As a kid, things in my life had to look a
certain way. Often appearance rode roughshod over function. Jump to
college, where the best music course I took was INTRODUCTION TO 20TH CENTURY
VISUAL ARTS. I loved Duchamp for his irreverence. I became aware of the
Bauhaus. I loved that visual artists seem to deal in bolder strokes than
composers. I found that I was able to make bold strokes as a composer.
Among the boldest was the notion of using trash as I found it. I enjoyed the
dichotomy of setting up a bunch of very humble looking stuff and astonishing
people with how wonderful I could make it sound. I resisted all efforts to
improve the look of my instruments-the trashier they looked, the more
effective they became. In truth, I just do the exact minimum necessary for
an item to sound its best and stop. I've never made an instrument of mine
look either better or worse than it had to. I think my instruments captured
the visual magic that Partch sought in his instruments, albeit in a different
way.
Clearly, I was and am my own man. Upon examining Partch I found things
to adopt in his work and things to discard. None of this dims the love I
have for CASTOR AND POLLUX and several other compositions. I am a musician
first. Great compositions are the most important achievements. Partch has
earned his place in my pantheon.
After I had been in NY a few years two other artists arrived here whose
work seemed to follow somewhere in Partch's slipstream as my own obviously
did. Bill Buchen (and his wife Mary) came and started to perform on gorgeous
instruments, objects that clearly passed all tests as sculpture. Dean
Drummond came with his zoomoozaphone, and the access to just intonation that
having such an instrument implies. Bill was not a skilled composer. He
couldn't create music that had a life of its own. He and Mary have gone on
to a career as international renown sculptors, more specifically as sound
sculptors. He has become an extraordinary tabla player. Dean's work seemed
dry to me. The zoomoozaphone is an interesting timbre but it was Partch's
mix of timbres I found compelling. Dean's music seemed more in the spirit of
Mario Davidovsky than Partch. Academic. Rigid. It struck me that all three
of us had chosen different aspects of Partch's work to explore for ourselves.
It seemed we had a strange little colony here in the east, far from
California where the real Partch action was.

So I always saw myself as someone following in Partch's footsteps without
ever pretending that I was Partch, or his heir. It occurred to me that my
work might actually be closer to Partch's in spirit than almost everyone
elses, but I'm happy to to let that be judged in 2025.

In 1987 I composed music for a production done under the auspices of
Newark Community School of the Arts in Newark, NJ. I was subsequently asked
to join the faculty and present courses on instrument building. This was too
bold a step on the school's part. Nobody registered for the courses. Bill
Reeder, the director, asked me if I would build something in the lobby of the
school so that everyone who entered would see what I was about. The more we
talked, the bigger our ideas got. I convinced him that I needed to build a
kithara. He agreed that the school would buy the materials for me. So I set
out to create a copy of Partch's new kithara.
Fortuitously, THE REVELATION AT COURTHOUSE PARK was to be performed in
Philadelphia. I contacted Danlee Mitchell and he agreed to let me examine
the instrument at length. I took lots of measurements, lots of photos. I
played it a bit, but tentatively since I didn't have any experience with it.
I'm not sure what Danlee thought of me. He was strict in a way. He insisted
that I build it 'as good or better' than Partch. I took this quite
seriously. Whenever I didn't understand what Partch had done or why I copied
his instrument as faithfully as I could. I didn't have a clue about redwood,
so I used it. I've had to replace several pieces of the instrument where
redwood has proved totally unsuitable and contemplate replacing all the
redwood eventually. What is gained in appearance is offset by the fragility
of the wood. Where I was sure I had a design improvement, I did it my way.
For example, the underbraces where the strings are attached are kind of
finicky in the original instrument. It is a bit difficult to change a broken
string. At the expense perhaps of visual complexity, my underbraces are very
accessible so it easy to replace a string. Perhaps the most significant
design change was that I chose to screw everything together so the instrument
could be taken apart. This makes travel far easier as I can pack it into two
luggage sized boxes. I have no idea how much sound is lost because the
resonators are less efficient because they are screwed together and not
glued. I have no idea if they even are less efficient. If they are, I think
that this tradeoff has proved itself. I have the world's most portable
kithara.
There are a variety of things I would do differently if I were to rebuild
the instrument. I appreciate more than you can imagine what compelled Partch
to build the new kithara to right the wrongs of the original kithara. First
on the list would be to replace all the redwood with something less prone to
cracking and stronger, so that screws wouldn't tear the wood under tension.
Second, I love the sound of the central and wing resonators but the
resonators for hexads 2-5 and 8-11 aren't as bright. At first I made them as
wide as Partch had, but when I couldn't fit the instrument together I had to
adjust the size of the pieces, so I shaved a bit off the redwood pieces and
perhaps got the spruce pieces closer together than they should be in these
resonators. In a remake, I'd adjust the design to make sure that these
resonators functioned better. Also I'd change which pieces screw into which
other pieces. My design puts stress on the spruce pieces in the resonator
and has caused one to crack. It is a bit hard to explain how the pieces fit
together so it can be easily visualized, so I'll spare you. In any event,
this is a new problem since Partch glued everything. As a stopgap I'm
thinking about putting something akin to a soundpost between the resonators,
although this will be difficult. Many times I've cursed Partch because he
built the instrument with an improbable dearth of right angles. I'm sure
only that I can't just prop a piece of chopstick there and be sure it would
stay in place.
Overall, I've got a working copy of Partch's instrument. I haven't
played on Partch's instrument since I built this one. The only true test for
'as good or better' would be to have one or several experience kithara
players play both instruments. This hasn't happened. I think it is safe to
say that my instrument is as good as his, and if portability is a significant
criterion, then my instrument is far better. His instrument is more of a
study in straight and curved lines. Mine is a slightly stripped down version
that is generally more functional. At this level the notion of 'as good or
better' becomes utterly subjective. What are the criteria?
A cello is a cello. Some are better than others-easier to finger, more
consistent resonator response to all frequencies, etc. Certainly the lesser
instrument is still a cello and can be used wherever a cello is needed. (I
play bass violin and always appreciate not having to carry my instrument
somewhere even if the bass that I find there is fairly horrible). At some
point, a kithara is a kithara. It was designed to play as Partch's
instrument does. It does that. That has to be more important than any
issues about whether an instrument is a Stradivarious instrument or some sort
of lesser instrument.

Partch will probably turn out to be the most important American composer
of the 20th century. I think his main competition is Charles Ives. In order
for Partch to be as widely influential as he should be, his instruments have
to be experienced. This means more instruments in many places, some good,
some not so good, but all dedicated to bringing his music to life.
Beethoven's status doesn't suffer when an amateur string quartet butchers
opus 59 #1. I worry that there are people in the Partch orbit who consider
that the only valid presentation of Partch is a presentation that
incorporates every aspect of Partch's aesthetic exactly as Partch would have
presented it. I very much respect what Dean Drummond is doing with the
Partch instruments. Dean's ensemble is full of better musicians than any
ensemble Partch ever had. Dean is stiffer than Partch, so the music will
never swing in quite the same way. Dean can't present Partch exactly as it
was. The NY Philharmonic doesn't present Beethoven exactly as it was.
Things change. They grow. The worst danger is that Parch becomes too
inaccessible, too hard to perform, too expensive to maintain the Partch
museum (such as it is). The greatest glory is when the tradition is passed
on and expanded-from Leoninus to Perotinus, from Palestina to Monteverdi,
from Mozart to Beethoven. From Partch to ?. From Partch to La Plante?
Let's see if I can create something written 'as good or better' than CASTOR
AND POLLUX.

If I could just shake my sense of history we'd all be better off.

I have a wonderful and bizarre role with the American Festival of
Microtonal Music. Occasionally I am handed a score that director Johnny
Reinhard would like to play, but he inevitably lacks one or two instruments.
My role is to build the missing instruments and then figure out how to play
them competently. A couple of interesting instruments are now in my
collection because of this role, among them the kithara and a version of
Julian Carillo's 96 pitch per octave harp. Sometimes I can just redesign one
of my trash instruments to function in the required way. When Johnny came to
me with Partch's DARK BROTHER, he was missing the bass marimba. I could have
built an instrument as close to Partch's as my kithara, but there seemed to
be no need. I've been building similar sounding instruments out of large
cardboard tubes for years. Why not just tune one of these as the bass
marimba is and see if it works ok. I don't think our first effort did. I'll
spare you the technicalities except to say that not all tubes are the same
and we used the tubes that were easiest to get and free. Eventually I threw
that set out (I wonder how many instruments Partch threw away). When another
opportunity to perform DARK BROTHER came our way, I built a new instrument
using much stronger tubes. This instrument sounds good-not identical to
Partch's but loud and full voiced. It seems to me to be appropriate for the
task-again the question is how precisely does one have to follow in Partch's
footsteps. In London, I rejected the tubes our presenters provided for me to
make an instrument with. They were not what I had requested and would not
have remained playable for long even if they had sounded ok. I never
prepared a tube to find out how it would sound. When I performed at the
Yogyakarta Gamelan Festival I specified that I needed carpet tubes to build a
similar instrument so I could play. Indeed, at the city's main carpet store
the tubes were being sold by the pound as scrap. I had my choice of about
200 tubes so it was easy to pick ones I knew would work well. And I knew
that it had to be easier in London. The next day the presenters discovered a
rug dealer who had a problem-his garage was full of old tubes and he couldn't
get them removed for a reasonable price. I was sorry I could only take 9,
but I had no trouble making a good instrument with what I took. From all
reports the instrument passed all possible tests, and has even been cited for
looking spectacular and somewhat Partchian. I wonder what Harry would have
thought. I think I know. I think had he seen them he would have made an
instrument out of tubes himself. He would have built some sort of incredible
visually complex frame and otherwise used the instrument pretty much as is.
Maybe he would have painted the tubes. I tend to put colored rings around
tubes so I can keep different sets visually distinct. What color would
Partch like the rings on my new set to be? Eventually this all dissolves
into speculation, not much of which is particularly productive. After I
finish writing the piece I'm working on in 17 equal, and if I can't get my
ensemble MUSIC FOR HOMEMADE INSTRUMENTS off its' collective duff, if I have
some time maybe I'll try to build the diamond marimba that Johnny has been
hinting he'd like.

Skip La Plante

Partch in the New Age, with caveats

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM>

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗David Beardsley <xouoxno@virtulink.com>

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗graham@microtonal.co.uk

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗JSZANTO@ADNC.COM

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com

🔗jpehrson@rcn.com